No argument there, but in earlier posts you somehow link "Big Oil" and "Big Auto" as one "Big Conspiracy". Tain't so.

Couple issues here.....

There were only a limited number of EV-1 vehicles made because it was always considered to be a learning lab type of a program. It was in development before the original California Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. It morphed from a development program to a controlled test fleet program in part to provide real world data to CARB to show them how impractical the ZEV mandate was. The impracticality is not in the intent of the mandate, because reducing airborne emissions is a noble and necessary undertaking. But placing all of the responsibility of the execution onto vehicle manufacturers via artificial sales targets without

1) recognizing the need for infra-structure changes
2) priming the consumer base by either offering significant incentives to buy EVs or significant decentives to purchasing vehicles with heavier emission loads.
3) drawing into consideration the investment and development time required by manufacturers to convert a large portion of their manufacturing capacity to EV.

The only reason the original EVs were ever put into production at any level was as a good faith effort by GM to comply with a mandate that was so ridiculously flawed that CARB has already changed it twice. And for the record, GM was not the only automaker that sued CARB over this. The lawsuit was enjoined by a consortium of automakers, including Ford, Chrysler, and (gasp) Toyota. So if that is, as you put it, the reason GM is struggling, then shouldn't Toyota also be struggling? Or could it be that not agreeing with CARB doesn't amount to a hill o' beans when it comes to a company's market place success?

The reason I asked if anyone here has had experience with an EV-1 is that it would probably be more enlightening for this board to hear directly from them about the pluses and minuses of operating an EV-1 in today's environment. In my opinion, the EV-1 was the most advanced EV of it's time (1996). Time has moved on and so has technology. The EV-1 would be a severely compromised one trick pony in today's world. Believe it or not, GM's R&D people knew this from the start, because they knew where they wanted to go with battery and EV development. For that (and other) reasons, the company did not want to burden the customer with the dilemna of how to support a vehicle that was so far behind the technology curve. Notice the vehicle was called "EV-1". That implies that the idea was to have an EV-2, EV-3 etc etc (on the other end of the scale, witness H1, H2, H3). Based on learnings and technological advances since the EV-1, you could look at the Volt as "EV-2".

Peace,

Martin

 

Ashen Grey,

Excellent post!! Let me add on to a couple of the points you make.....

There were two basic differences between the EV-1 and the electrics that were built by Toyota and Honda in the same timeframe....

CHARGING & RANGE
The RAV-4 and the Honda (I forget which vehicle) could be charged without using special equipment or requirements for a dedicated infra-structure. That's the upside. The downside is that charging them took HOURS and the range was very short. Their performance (acceleration) was also less than desireable because they were calibrated to maximize what little range the batteries provided at the time. FWIW, GM has a Chevrolet S-10 pick up EV that operated on the exact same EV principles as the RAV-4 and the Honda (I think it was a CRX, but I'm not certain.

The EV-1, on the other hand, had significantly more range than the other EVs and took minutes, not hours to charge. That's the upside. The downside is that to get the shorter charging time, the EV-1 required a special inductive charging unit. In the "Give it Back" leasing program that GM used with the EV-1, GM bore the cost of the inductive charging unit. In a real world "Buy the Car and Keep It Forever" scenario, the customer would have had to pay the cost of the inductive charger unit. Also, this made it nearly impossible to charge the vehicle anywhere but home. Out of state trips would be impossible. You would have to carefully measure your trips to make certain that you didn't get caught in the wrong place when your charge depleted.

PERFORMANCE

The Toyota RAV4, Honda whatever model, and Chevrolet S-10 electrics were all calibrated to minimize performance capability at the expense of charge life. The EV-1 could actually perform on par with (in many cases better than ) typical mid-size sedans. Of course this would reduce overall charge life, so again, you would not want to get yourself in a situation where a few minutes of "spirited driving" had you running out of charge sooner than expected, especially if you were too far from a charging station. This is why I continue to harp on California's reneging on the provision of additional charging stations.

I think your statement on Karma is on point. I feel equally strong that the public perceptions are driven more by good execution of PR machines than actual technical performance.

Peace,

Martin

 

I'll assume that this comment is equally directed towards me because, well it should be. I am very critical of your position because it lacks logic. The central theme of most of my more recent posts on this topic is that as advanced as the EV-1 was for its time, it could not survive as a viable product today. The "owner" of the vehicle would not have suitable options for maintaining the charge on these vehicles and the vehicle would be horribly compromised in terms of when and where the "owner" could use it.

The program was always a controlled test fleet program because of what it takes in terms of care and handling to keep the vehicles operational and because of the knowledge that battery technologies were in development that would allow for better battery charging and storage options. There might be a few people who could live within the compromises required, but not enough to support such a capital intensive business venture.

And the idea that a typical family could manage the compromise by having multiple vehicles seems to assume that the typical family has the resources to own multiple vehicles and places priority on owning a second vehicle over other financial requirements. It may work for some, but a better solution is needed. That solution base includes hybrids and it includes Volt and it includes a more advanced generation of uncompromised EVs that is yet to come.

Peace,

Martin

 

You may disagree with my position, but stating that it is illogical is well..... illogical.

Just because I dont agree with your arguement doesn't mean I lack logic. I never accused Big Auto and Big Oil of being in cahoots. Only GM and Big Oil. I believe that Honda, Toyota, and other Big Auto companies are definitely NOT in cahoots with Big Oil.

Sure Chrysler and Ford and most the Euros dont have much in the way of hybrids either, but that doesn't make them as culpable in my mind as a company that had a great product and killed it for the greedy aspirations of only a handful of powerful people. I believe in power of the people, not power over the people.

I dont like GM because they are anti green. Sure they have the volt, but it is only a concept. One inspired by GM's worry that they are losing the battle of Green transportation that WILL become the future of transporation. They also NOW recgnize that killing the EV1 program was a major strategical blunder.

Sure the EV1 was limited in some ways, but if the platform had continued, the EV1 would today be practical for over 50% of households.

Martin, My earlier comment was not initially directed at you, but now I guess it is because you demonstrate an inability to have a different opinion without becoming insulting. Insults are the last defense from the loser of a debate.

 

Didn't GM sell all of it's EV1 technology to CHEVRON? I thought that's why the Ev1 cars had to be confiscated and crushed. Thus, you have GM selling a clean-emissions vehicle to an oil company so that the oil company could get a "threatening" technology off the streets.

Martin: Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

You are correct that they sold their advanced battery technology (R&D, existing Mfg facility in Michigan, all designs, and all product rights) to Chevron. Anybody care to guess what Chevron did to it?

 

This opinion is unfounded and bordering on illogical. Any tanginble, confirmable proof you'd like to offer could have me change my assertion that it lacks logic. But for the most part, when I say your position is illogical, I am referring to your position that a vehicle that drivers have no way of refueling would be a great product. You have yet to address the fact that anyone who would try to operate an EV-1 today would only be able to recharge it at home or at the home of an acquaintence who also happened to own an EV-1. And they'd better live within 100 miles of each other and drive very conservatively. Otherwise, I guess it's all good.

And those people are?............

This is an opinion and a logical one. The Volt is a concept vehicle. As I have stated in another thread, there are basically two kinds of concept vehicles. Those that are never intended for production. The GM Precept would be a good example of such a concept vehicle. Typically though, "never to built" concepts feature a styling direction or technology content that may be utilized in other vehicles. Some of the technologies first displayed in the Precept have found their way into the Volt and/or the Sequel fuel cell vehicle.

The other type of concept is the "likely to be built" type of concept. The Pontiac Solstice was such a vehicle. As was the current Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Camaro. In my opinion, the Volt is such a vehicle. But, as you state, until a definitive production announcement is made it is still a concept.

Here is where I again question your logic, although I will cut you some slack because there is a piece of the equation you may not be as aware of that I am privy to because of my position in the auto industry. Company's do not just pull fully functioning prototype vehicles out of the air in short order as a reaction to something another company may have done recently. In other words, the timing and cost involved to develop and produce a Volt (or a Sequel or a Hy-Wire or a Precept) means somebody has been working on this for YEARS, and spending a lot of money doing it. The same company has been spending a lot of time, manpower, and money to develop hybrid bus systems, fuel cell technologies and test fleets, and three different types of hybrids. This stuff didn't just start yesterday or in the last two or three years for that matter. Companies that don't give a rip about the ecology wouldn't burn the kinds of cash and resources involved here just for giggles and grins.
[/quote]

And they would be re-charged how?

It is hard to display or interpret emotion with typing on the internet, so I will just tell you FLAT OUT, I am in no way trying to be insulting. I can be sarcastic at times, but other than one blow-up with Ashen Grey that I have since apologized for I think I've been very civil. If you find something I have stated to be particularly insulting or attacking, please pm it to me as a quote and I will address it with you. I AM saying that several of your positions are illogical. I am sorry if you find that statement insulting, but it is no different than if I told someone that a joke they told was not funny. It either is or it isn't.

Most people that I interact with on this site have come to realize that I deal in fact, reference, and example and go out of my way to wring the logic out of a topic. Doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, if the facts point in a particular direction, that's what I will deal with and own up to. In this case, you continue to state unfounded figures (EV-1 is practical for 50% of households) that not only have no data to support them, but are also counter to the stated fact that the vehicle can only be charged from dedicated induction charging stations that do not exist. That to me is illogical. Doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not. All the available facts line up against it.

I really didn't think that you were directing your original comment towards me, but in reading it I realized that I fit the bill, so I owned up to it.

Peace,

Martin

 

In your opinion maybe. I find your opinions "interesting" too.


hmmmm, yes I see your point.

 

You are partially correct and Marmaduke added more clarity. Some of the brick and mortar facilities were sold to someone (I can't confirm that it was or was not Chevron, so I will stipulate that it may well have been.)

The important thing is that the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY meaning all the patents and copyrights associated with the continued development and improvement of the technologies remained with GM and were applied learnings to supplement hybrid, fuel cell, and Volt (ie - next gen EV) development.

As for the crushing of the cars, that was always program intent. Let me give you two data points to substantiate this......

In 1997 I attended a training class run by a consulting firm. I had lunch with one of the trainers. He was leasing an EV-1. At the time I had no involvement with EV-1. He explained to me that he enjoyed the vehicle, was frustrated that he couldn't take it on long trips because of the charging issue. He made a rather derogatory statement about his home state for goofing up that deal and not living up to promises. He also expressed disappointment in knowing that at the end of his lease he would have to turn his vehicle in, with no option to buy it and that it would most likely be destroyed. He knew this in 1997 because the company told him that up front.

Fast forward to 2000. Through a minor re-org, I wound up working for one of the people who was instrumental in the entire EV-1 project from cradle to grave. He explained to me in great detail how the program came to be and why it would take the path that it was to take. That is as detailed as I can or will get on this subject. Bottom line......The program was always intended to be a limited run, low volume, closed end lease controlled fleet, with vehicles returned to the company. Some vehicles were kept for future product development. Those not needed for product development were to be crushed. No outside companies were involved in making decisions on the overall dispensation of the vehicles. Not Chevron, not Mattel, not anyone outside of GM.

Peace,

Martin

 

My guess is they used it to further develop Nickel Metal Hydride batteries for the hybrids that will wipe them off the face of the earth (<--That last bit was sarcasm). Chevron has subsidiaries in the battery business. http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2005/2005-05-18.asp

It's probably a hedge to maintain a position in the automotive energy supply business. Sorta like RJ Reynolds heavy investments in the food industry when tobacco became not cool.

It is not uncommon for auto companies to develop advanced technologies and then sell access to the rights (sometimes total intellectual property, sometimes usage rights) to suppliers who may eventually be delegated the responsibility to produce the product. Toyota has similar arrangements with Denso, Aisin, and either Hitachi or Panasonic (can't remember which).

Peace,

Martin